Arson - Danger To Life Flashcards
Arson Danger to Life
S267(1)(a) ARSON - DANGER TO LIFE
- Everyone
- Intentionally OR Recklessly
- Damages by fire OR Damages by means of explosive
- ANY property
- If they know OR ought to know that danger is likely to ensue (life other than defendant)
Intentionally
INTENT to commit the act (done deliberately) and intention to produce a specific result (aim/object).
Offender actions/words, surrounding circumstances, nature or act - R V COLLISTER
Secondary Intent
A person may have intended a secondary outcome er bomb plane to get insurance, secondary intent is to kill
R V Cameron
CAMERON V R
Recklessness is established if: defendant recognised that there was a real possibility that - actions would bring about the proscribed result; the proscribed circumstances existed and having regard to that risk those actions were unreasonable.
Proving Recklessness
RECKLESSNESS
- Defendant consciously and deliberately ran a risk (a subjective test)
- The risk was one that was unreasonable to take in the circumstances as they were known to the defendant (objective test – based on whether a reasonable person would have taken the risk).
Fire
Fire is the result of the process of combustion, a chemical reaction between fuel and oxygen, triggered by heat
Damages by fire
DAMAGES BY FIRE
Prosecution must prove property has been damaged by fire/explosive as a result of defendants actions.
Often involve burning/charring. But does not need to be set alight - melting, blistering, significant heat/smoke damage.
Explosive
EXPLOSIVE - S2 Arms Act 1983 - any substance/mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable of decomposition at such a rapid rate as to result in an explosion/pyrotechnic - includes gunpowder, gelignite, rockets (not firearms/fireworks)
R V Archer
Property may be damaged if it suffers permanent/temp physical harm or permanent/temp impairment of its use/value
Property
PROPERTY - Includes any real and personal property and any estate or interest in any real/personal property, money, electricity and any debt, other right or interest.
Only tangible can be damaged by fire but note irretrievable info on damaged computers.
Know or Ought to Know
KNOW/OUGHT TO
Subjective - Did the defendant know that human life was likely to be endangered by his actions?
Objective - If insufficient evidence that they were conscious of the risk - what would a reasonable person have thought in the same circumstances? Would a reasonable person have recognised the risk?